Expectation of Privacy
Katz vs. US (Katz Call) A persons right to privacy exists when 1. a person exhibits actual expectation of privacy (subjective) and 2. The expectation must be one that society is willing to accept as reasonable. (objective)
Terry v. Ohio
Landmark ruling that a police officer can detain without arrest, and frisk for officer safety when there is reasonable suspicion that a crime is about to be committed. Court rules that detention is a seizure, and frisk is a search, but is allowable since they are temporary and limited in scope, respectively.
Brower v. Inyo County
Seizure occurs when government termination of a person's movement is effected through means intentionally applied.
California v. Hodari
In order for a seizure to have occurred there must either be some application of physical force, even if extremely slight, or a show of authority to which the subject yields.
Mapp v. Ohio: Supreme court decision set the judicially established rule that prohibits the use of evidence obtained in violation of the 4th amendment in court.
Fruit of the Poisonous Tree
Wong Sun vs. US established that evidence obtained after illegal government action will be excluded from evidence. This includes physical/tangible as well as intangibles such as subsequent confessions, admissions, identifications, and testimony obtained as a result of the initial unlawful act.
"good faith" exception
US vs. Leon says that the exclusionary rule should be modified so as not to bar the admission of evidence seized in reasonable, good-faith reliance on a search warrant that was subsequently held to be defective. (Upheld in Herring vs. US)
"plain view" doctrine
The rule, from the Supreme Court decision in Harris v. U.S, that anything a police officer sees in plain view, when that officer has the right to be where he or she is, is not the product of a search and is therefore admissible as evidence. So with plain view you can seize the item without a warrant. Definition of plain view: Object falling in plain view of officer who has the right to be in position to have that view are subject to seizure without a warrant and may be introduced in evidence.
Miranda v. Arizona
The Supreme Court ruling that the guarantee of due process requires that suspects in the police custody be informed that they have the right to remain silent, that anything they say be be used against them, and that they have the right to counsel--before any questioning can permissibly take place. 5th Amend. If a subject is in custody and interrogation is going to take place, Miranda Warning/Rights are required to be recited.
protective sweep doctrine
The rule that when police officers execute an arrest on or outside private premises, they may conduct an examination of the entire premises, without warrant, for other persons whose presence may pose a danger to their safety or to evidence capable of being removed or destroyed.
the questioning of police investigation and apprehension that are subject to procedural rules dictated by law and constitutional rights.
The right of a person to complain in court about hte lawfulness of a police action (arrest, detention, search, frisk)
Berguis v. Thompkins
A defendant's invocation of his right to silence must be unambiguous (without question). Thompkins should have affirmatively invoked his right to remain silent.
Montejo v. Louisiana
No reason to distinguish, for the purposes of a suspect waiving their rights, a represented individual from an unrepresented one (no attorney). For each a Miranda warning adequately inform the individual of their right to counsel.
Court case law that must be taken into account (set by a court in the appellate chain for the court it binds).
Court case law that may be taken into effect (from same level court, or a court not in the same circuit/region/district).
When a point of law has been settled by decision of the highest court of the state the decision becomes the law of the state, and shall not be departed from.
Oregon v. Haas
A state is free to impose greater restrictions on police than those of federal constitutional standards.
Heitman v. Texas
The court of criminal appeals will not be bound by the US Supreme Court when addressing 4th amendment issues. The federal constitution sets the floor for individual rights; state constitutions establish the ceiling.
Ramirez v. Texas
May constitute custody: "physically derived of freedom of action in any significant way" or "When a law-enforcement officer tells the subject he cannot leave"
US v. Mendenhall
to determine whether an arrest has taken place, a court will apply an objective standard, focusing on the reasonable impression conveyed to the person subjected to the apprehension and detention. In this respect, the inquiry is whether, in the view of all the circumstances surrounding the encounter a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave.
Rhodes v. Texas
Handcuffing of suspect during detention for safety was reasonable and justified and did not convert to arrest.
Stansbury v. CA
traffic stop doesn't constitute custody for Miranda purposes. However noncustodial custody can turn into custodial custody because the situation escalates. Consider Intent, Authority, Seize and detain, understanding of the individual being arrested. The mere denial of intent to arrest by the officer will usually be insufficient.
Florida v. Royer
Consensual Encounters okay -- says LEOs don't violate the 4th amendment by merely approaching an individual on the street or in another public place by asking them if they are willing to answer some questions. Must be voluntary.
Crain v. Texas
The nature and tone of the way the officers talks to the person matters in whether the interaction is a consensual encounter.
Georgia v. Randolf
Husband / Wife -- can't give consent for areas where normally they would not have unrestricted access.
freely and voluntarily given
Stegald v. US
Entry may be forced for arrest warrant only if being executed at the residence where the person named in the arrest warrant lives.
Specific articulable facts which, in light of an officer's experience and general knowledge, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, would reasonably warrant an intrusion on a citizen.
Illinois v. Wardlow
Flight is not necessarily indicative of ongoing criminal activity, however a defendants unprovoked flight from officers in areas of heavy narcotics trafficking supports reasonable suspicion that may be involved in criminal activity and justifies a stop.
Guzman v. Texas
P.C. for arrest deals with probabilities; it requires more than mere suspicion, but far less evidence than that needed to support conviction or even that needed to support finding by preponderance of evidence. Totality of the circumstances was cited in court's decision.
Aguilar v. Texas (and Illinois v. Gates)
Established a two prong test for search warrants that require a: 1. A credible source, 2. A reliable base of knowledge. This decision was overturned with Illinois v. Gates which held that even though an anonymous tip might not be a credible source, that when detailed facts of innocent activities are corroborated, then P.C. for a warrant may exist.
Definition: Probable Cause
A reasonable ground to suspect that a person has committed or is committing a crime or that a place contains specific items connected with a crime. At the moment of arrest probable cause ceases to build.
Definition: Exigent Circumstances
Situations that demand unusual or immediate action in the course of a criminal investigation. Refers generally to situations in which law enforcement agents will be unable or unlikely to effect an arrest, search or seizure for which PC exists unless they act swiftly and without seeking prior judicial authorization.
Scope of Search
Means the area authorized by a particular search or the limitations of a particular type of search or object.
Understanding on behalf of the subject being arrested that he is arrested without any physical control being demonstrated by the officer. The individual submits.
Restraint from CCP 11.22
By restraint is meant the kind of control which one person exercises over another, not to confine him within certain limits, but to subject him to the general authority and power of the person claiming such right.
Elements used to build PC
High crime rate area, time of day or night, location, furtive act, abnormal demeanor, officer's own knowledge of facts and circumstances.
Three Prong elements for Temporary Detention (Elements required for detaining)
Reasonable suspicion that some activity out of the ordinary is or has taken place. Some connection of the detained with the suspicious activity. Some indication the suspicious activity is related to a specfiic offense.
Brown v. Texas
Established that failure to ID cannot be an offense during a detention. The suspect can refuse ID request while detained. A person cannot be required to ID even if stop is lawful. You may orally command the person to remain for a reasonable length of time that can be satisfactorily accounted for, while actively involved in the investigation at hand. You may take the person with you to check out a possible crime scene.
Baity v. Texas
Affirmed Terry v. Ohio Detention and Frisk provisions (at CCA state level).
Armstrong v. Texas
Illegal stop and arrest. Consent to search given after arrest and the court concluded that under these circumstances the evidence was seized through exploitation of the illegal stop rather than by means sufficient to remove the primary taint.
Adams v. Williams
Reasonable suspicion of r a stop and frisk need not be based only upon an officer's personal observations but may also be based on information supplied by another person. Under these circumstances, a police officer's action in reaching the spot where the gun was thought to be hidden constituted a limited and reasonable intrusion designed to insure the officer's safety.
Ohio v. Robinette
An investigative detention must be temp. and last no longer that is necessary to effect the purpose of the stop unless additional suspicious activity is found o justify the prolonged detention.
US v. Arvizu
In making reasonable-suspicion determinations, reviewing courts must look at the "totality of the circumstances" of each case to see whether the detaining officer has a "particularized and objective basis" for suspecting legal wrongdoing. This process allows officers to draw on their own experiences and specialized training to make inferences from and deductions about the cumulative information available.
Hurtado v. Texas
Originally stopped because tag came back with possible warrant for driver. It wasn't the driver, but court said stop was good and subsequent cocaine discovery was prosecuted.
3 Prong Test from Hoag v. State
Mere suspicion that criminal activity is affot is insufficient to justify a Terry stop; facts must support reasonable suspicion that:
1. Reasonable suspicion that some activity out of the ordinary is or has taken place.
2. Some connection of the detained with the suspicious activity.
3. Some indication the suspicious activity is related to a specific offense.
Stopped page 75 Prior to Detention
Stopped Page 75 Prior to Detention ... will have all slides entered in no later than Friday 4/1/2011.
Gordon v. State
Can not cuff someone and place them in car while executing a search of their house
Florida vs. J.L.
Call for service alone does not justify detention
Minnesota v. Dickerson
Plain Feel: Must be there legally, must immediately recognize contraband, & must not manipulate
Ohio vs. Robinette
A detention must be temporary, and last no longer than necessary
Chimel vs. California
Incident to arrest an officer may search the person and the "area within the immediate control"
U.S. vs. Edwards
Allows the search of arrested individuals away from the scene of arrest
U.S. vs. Robinson
Scope of the search of a person incident to arrest is for evidence of a crime, means of escape, & weapons
U.S. vs. Chadwick
subject incident to arrest has to take place at the time & place of arrest
Lippert vs. TX
Being close to others does not alone give PC to search you
US vs. Finley
Can search a phone for recent calls & text messages
Carroll vs. US
Do not need a warrant to search a vehicle b/c it being "readily mobile" constitutes exigent circumstances.
California vs. Acevedo
If searching an auto w/ PC you may search contents including locked containers
US vs. McSween
The smell of marijuana gives PC to search
US vs. Reed
Because a vehicle smells like marijuana does not necessarily mean a person smells like marijuana
Wyoming vs. Houghton
If searching a vehicle w/ PC you may search all containers in the vehicle, regardless of who the owner is
New York vs. Belton
Search of a vehicle incident to arrest is limited to the passenger compartment and includes any containers inside
Arizona v. Gant
Police may only search a vehicle incident to arrest if: The arrestee might access the vehicle @ the time of search, or the vehicle contains evidence of the offense he was arrested for.
Knowles vs. Iowa
May not search incident to citation, a custody arrest must occur
Michigan vs. Long
Allows protective search of a vehicle
Florida vs. Jimeno
The scope of a suspect's consent is that of "objective reasonableness" based on the conversation between the officer and the suspect
US v. Garcia
The search of hidden compartments during a consent search is reasonable
Colorado v. Bertine
Officers may open closed containers during inventory In Accordance W/ standard police procedures
Florida v. Wells
Inventory must not be a ruse for a general rummaging
US v. Bonner
All passengers are also detained in a traffic stop
Arizona v. Johnson
In order to frisk driver or passenger in a traffic stop you must have RS that the person is armed and dangerous
St. George v. TX
Says you need RS to question (other than consensual questioning) passengers during a traffic stop
Hester v. US
Open field doctrine; authorizes open field searches w/o warrant
Payton vs. New York
W/o exigent circumstances you can not enter a house unless you have a warrant
Illinois v. MacArthur
You can secure a person's home while waiting for a search warrant
Warden vs. Hayden
May enter a place for the purpose of search and seizure if you are in fresh pursuit of a fleeing felon
US vs. Howard
Factors determining if police manufactured exigency: 1. Bad faith 2. Did police intend to create exigency 3. Were LE tactics reasonable in the circumstances
Wilson v. Arkansas
Knock & announce requirement could be waved for threat of violence or possible destruction of evidence
Richards v. Wisconsin
Officers need to articulate individual reasons for knock & announce waiver
US v. Banks
No knock & announce may create damage, but it may also be necessary to prevent destruction of evidence
Muehler v. Mena
When executing a dangerous search warrant officers may handcuff individuals present until the persons pose no danger to officers
US vs. Matlock
If an authorized person who is present gives consent, anyone else who has authority must be present to refuse consent
Bumper vs. NC
You may not falsely tell someone you have a warrant in order to get consent
Georgia v. Randolph
If consent is given by one individual and refused by another who is present, you do not have consent to search
CA vs. Greenwood
Garbage left out outside the curtlage does not exhibit an expectation of privacy and may be searched